Blog

Articles by Month

ICC Draft Opinions July 2026

20/05/2026 470/TA.959Bank A issued a counter-guarantee to Bank B under URDG 758 in support of an advance payment guarantee, both subject to strict wording requirements. The counter-guarantee required Bank B to confirm, in its demand, that it had received a complying demand under the guarantee. It also included an implementation condition tied to the advance payment being received by the contractor's account at Bank A. Although the advance payment was in fact received (albeit from a third party and without reference to the guarantee), Bank B's demand in January 2022 did not follow the exact wording required under the counter-guarantee, instead paraphrasing the beneficiary's statement. On this basis, Bank A rejected the demand, citing both non-compliant wording and non-fulfilment of the implementation condition.Following the refusal, no further action was taken. Both the guarantee and counter-guarantee expired in early 2022, and no formal release was issued by Bank B. With the applicable limitation period now expired at the end of 2025, the question arises whether Bank A may close its records unilaterally.

470/TA.960Under a documentary credit subject to UCP 600, the issuing bank honoured a complying presentation and confirmed payment via MT756 with value dated 21 January 2026. However, due to sanctions screening by its USD correspondent, the funds were not released until 29 January 2026 despite the issuing bank responding promptly to all information requests. The advising bank subsequently claimed interest for delayed payment, while the correspondent bank rejected liability, citing mandatory regulatory compliance processes.

470/TA.961The nominated/transferring bank argued that the documents complied in substance with the credit requirements and that the alleged discrepancies were unsupported by either UCP 600 or international standard banking practice. The issuing bank objected to wording on the invoice such as "Solarpark Construction Fee", the inclusion of fulfilment and payment due dates, and reference to bank transfer as payment method, despite no apparent contradiction with the credit terms. It also rejected the CMR for lacking the consignee's address and refused a "Delivery Note" in lieu of a packing list, even though the document contained full packing details and performed the same documentary function. The transferring bank relied heavily on the principle of function over title under ISBP 745 paragraph A39 and argued that absent specific L/C requirements, additional wording or omitted address details were not discrepancies. The issuing bank nevertheless maintained a more formalistic interpretation, ultimately deducting discrepancy fees despite the objections. The request seeks an ICC Opinion on whether any of the discrepancies were genuinely valid under UCP 600 and ISBP practice.

470/TA.962The issuing bank rejected a presentation because the commercial invoice and packing list did not show a single aggregated total quantity of goods, even though each item quantity was individually stated and the overall shipped quantity could easily be determined by simple addition. The presenter argued that neither UCP 600 nor ISBP 821 requires documents to show mathematically summarised totals where the underlying quantities are already clearly stated. The issuing bank nevertheless relied on ISBP 821 paragraph M6 and UCP 600 article 18(c), contending that the total quantity formed part of the goods description in the credit and therefore had to appear expressly on the invoice. A second dispute arose over the certificate of origin. Although the certificate listed all required countries of origin and matched the invoice and amended credit overall, the issuing bank claimed it was discrepant because it did not allocate a specific country of origin against each individual goods item or HS code. The presenter rejected this interpretation on the basis that the credit contained no express requirement for item-by-item origin certification. The matter was therefore referred to the ICC Banking Commission for clarification on whether banks may impose such implied documentary requirements under UCP 600 and ISBP 821.

470/TA.963issuing bank relied on wording inserted in field 78 of the MT700, which stated that EUR 100 handling charges for discrepancies and "our Swift fees being EUR 35.00" would be deducted. Although the documents presented were compliant and no discrepancy fee was applied, the issuing bank nevertheless deducted EUR 35.00 from the reimbursement amount as a Swift fee. The presenter objected on several grounds: firstly, that the wording in field 78 could reasonably be interpreted as linking both the discrepancy charge and the Swift fee to discrepant presentations only; secondly, that no payment advice or Swift confirmation had been requested from the presenter; and thirdly, that field 78 contains only interbank operational instructions and should not override the substantive terms of the credit or UCP 600, particularly the express allocation of charges in field 71D. The issuing bank maintained that the EUR 35.00 Swift fee applied independently of discrepancies and was recoverable from the beneficiary under the instructions contained in field 78. The request therefore seeks ICC Banking Commission clarification on whether such wording authorises unconditional deduction of Swift fees, whether such fees may be deducted absent any requested Swift communication, and whether provisions contained solely within MT700 field 78 can validly modify the operative terms of the credit and bind the beneficiary notwithstanding contrary wording elsewhere in the credit.

470/TA.964A transferable credit subject to UCP 600 allowed a 20-day presentation period and was transferred without curtailment of either the expiry date or presentation period. The second beneficiary presented documents within the permitted period, but the transferring bank only completed examination on the fourth day after expiry and subsequently sought substitution of invoices from the first beneficiary. The substitute invoices were received several days later, resulting in the documents only being forwarded to the issuing bank on the twelfth day after expiry and thirty-two days after shipment. The transferring bank considered that the presentation by the second beneficiary had been timely and that a reasonable additional period should be implied for examination, substitution, and re-examination processes inherent in a transfer transaction under article 38. The issuing bank disagreed, refusing the presentation as expired and late, arguing that the five banking day examination period under UCP 600 article 14(b) did not support such an extended delay and that the transferring bank's covering letter, dated well after expiry and the presentation period, could not reasonably substantiate a confirmation of timely presentation. The request therefore seeks clarification from the ICC Banking Commission on whether additional time may reasonably be implied for substitution procedures under transferable credits, whether the delay allowed to the first beneficiary for substitution was acceptable, and whether the issuing bank was entitled to disregard the transferring bank's confirmation of timely presentation based on the elapsed examination and forwarding periods.

www.tradefinance.training

Back to recent articles